KALAWATI AND OTHERS Vs. RAJESH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 5.7.2010 passed by the Fourth M.A.C.T., Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 69 of 2009. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 67,000 with interest to the claimants. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on the lower side and, hence, needs to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement/reduction in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out and, if so, to what extent? It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation, etc. It is for the reason that, firstly, all these findings are recorded in favour of the claimants by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants' favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance company either by way of cross -appeal or cross -objection. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues.

(2.) AS observed supra, it is a death case. On 13.5.2009 deceased Balkrishan, who was aged 42 years, met with a motor accident and died, giving rise to filing of claim petition by legal representatives (appellants herein) out of which this appeal arises seeking compensation for his death. The case was contested by the respondents. Parties adduced evidence. Claims Tribunal by impugned award partly allowed the claim petition filed by claimants and, as stated supra, awarded a sum of Rs. 67,000. It is submitted that deceased Balkrishan was in trade as he was sweets merchant and running a shop in the name of his wife. It is submitted that income of the deceased was assessed by the learned Tribunal on the basis of last income tax return. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that amount awarded is inadequate which deserves to be enhanced by allowing the appeal filed by the appellants.

(3.) FROM perusal of record, it appears that Balkrishan was in business, he was also submitting income tax returns which are on record right from Exh. P8 to Exh. P16. The incomes shown in all the returns are as under: